Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Kim Davis and Faith in the Workplace
Kim Davis, the court clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples is going to jail for contempt of court. Her reasons for refusing to do so are because, in her own words, “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”
So quit your job, Kim. Problem solved.
I worked for ten years as a commercial/advertising photographer, and there were jobs I turned down on moral and religious grounds. I took a hit in the wallet for doing so, but I walked away with a clear conscience and good feeling knowing that there were just some things I would not do for money. Come to think of it, I’ve had moral qualms of one kind or another at just about every job I’ve had because I’m surrounded by people who don’t share my convictions. It’s not that I was asked to do anything illegal, but in every job, there are corners that can be cut and rules that can be bent. There were/are some lines I will not cross.
Yes, it’s more difficult to act like a Christian now than it was in, say, 1957 or thereabouts. However, how difficult was it for Paul, Barnabas, Aquila, Priscilla, et al., to live their lives in a culture and legal system that offered them no help whatsoever when it came to taking a stand for Christ? Despite that hostile environment, an environment in which thousands were killed for their beliefs, Christianity flourished and covered all of the Roman empire and the world. Maybe we need to take a long, hard look at the relationship between our faith, our culture, and our politics, and ask ourselves which of the three is truly most important in our lives.
Published in General
I read on another Rico thread that the SCOTUS didn’t MAKE a law, they made a ruling on a law, which they legally cannot enforce. Do I have that right? Also, why is her being a Democrat garnering no support for her stand? she’s standing stronger on this issue than Mcconnell and Boehner have ever done, for Republicans! I say, go for it, gal! (& her being married 4 times shouldn’t be an issue, either!)
She developed her particular sensitivities only after being elected.
What are the terms of her employment? If they are along the lines of “to uphold the laws of the land,” then I think she’s in a jam.
I agree with those saying that it seems to be OK for some to pick and choose which laws to uphold, (the Sanctuary City argument) but two wrongs don’t make a right, and it’s incumbent on at least one side to be consistent, I should think.
Furthering the discussion, is marriage primarily a civil, religious or cultural function?
As it stands now (and has been since at least the beginning of the Reformation) the answer to that question is “Yes, all three.”
Is that definition still valid, and if so, why. If not, why?
If they have to go through an impeachment process to fire her, why don’t they have to go through an impeachment process to jail her?
As I understand it, she is being jailed for being in contempt of a lower court, not for being in contempt of the Supreme Court.
The mayor of San Francisco isn’t in jail and she shouldn’t be either: consistent.
…or accept the punishment of the state, which is what she is doing.
(Furthermore, shouldn’t elected officials answer first to those who elected them?)
Sounds like a typical Democrat to me. Did not our current President do the same? Was he not against SSM before he evolved for it?
Has he been held in contempt of court?
She’s not a public employee. She’s an elected. The avatar of the people, vested with their delegated sovereign power.
Normally, I’d be in favor of the majesty of the law restricting the powers and abilities of the people’s avatars. Actually, I still am. But the majesty of the law restricts those powers, not the blasts of wind erupting from Anthony Kennedy’s pen.
I have no strong feelings on the matter, specifically -as I said before, I’m not quite willing to storm the Bastile over this, so I’m not quite willing to engage in a little rebellion. However, the people celebrating her imprisonment are pushing me off that position, and not in the peaceful coexistence direction.
The state of Kentucky could very easily pass a law allowing officials with conscience objections to refer such licenses to neighboring counties or (better) empowering someone else to do the job. That would be a sufficient answer to the vegetarian issuing hunting licenses, too.
If you object morally to something central to the job or to a significant portion of the work you do, at some point you need a new job. A teetotaler shouldn’t be a bartender.
That said, in this era political correctness slips in little things everywhere, and we should protect peoples’ ability to say no lest the job market shrink smaller and smaller for those who won’t go along. Besides, the state of Kentucky did not ask for Obergefell. It doesn’t need to lose the services of those who can’t in good conscience go along with the law while there’s an easy way around it — let alone putting them in prison.
Because one has to do with her performance of the duties of her elected office and the other is an “unrelated” contempt of court charge would be my guess.
Is there a good reason they can’t make the special accommodation of taking her name off of the license?
But we don’t know what the position of the residents of her county think of the whole thing. I’m not aware of any reports about that aspect. Are there demonstrators either for or against her position? If her constituents rallied around her and were willing to go to similar lengths to defend her then we’d have a slightly different set of circumstances around which to have a discussion. As far as I can tell, they’ve left her to deal with this and she appears to be doing this on behalf of herself and her own beliefs and not at her constituents’ behest.
That’s what elections are for.
As far as I am aware the government in our country is secular. It may draw many of its founding principals from Judeo-Christian traditions and values, but it is secular in form and function. To my mind that means that people representing the government cannot use their personal religious beliefs as a reason not to perform the requirements of their job. That has the function of taking away the secular form of government. If we let her do it, then how can we prevent a county clerk from issuing marriage certificates for polygamous marriages if their religious conscience dictates they do so?
This.
No matter what the will of the electorate, the Constitution must take precedence over that will or it is a dead letter. Thus, if an elected official decides to give the will of her constituents preference over the Constitution when the two conflict, we should expect her to be sanctioned.
The problem is who gets to determine what the Constitution means – and that question will continue to haunt us for quite some time.
I’m talking about the issue, not the disparate outcome. If all are consistent in our understanding and enforcement of the underlying issue (federal law), the outcome will take care of itself. But all are not.
I see two separate matters here. In legal terms, she obviously is in contempt of court (who isn’t?) and must suffer the legal consequences, agreed.
The other is a matter of justice. To those who believe SSM is a “right” as a matter of justice, this is a perfectly just outcome of her behavior.
To others who believe there is no “right” to marriage, but, rather, marriage is to be conferred on those meeting four minimum standards: opposite sex, only two, consent above the (somewhat arbitrary) appropriate minimum age, and (another somewhat arbitrary) separation of blood relation. For these people, SSM is imposed by judicial fiat, unjustly, on religious believers. It’s the thought police in action. And it won’t ever stop (we will always have the Left with us) until and unless people are willing to be destroyed over it, and others recognize the injustice therein.
Butchers and bakers and candlestick makers … and florists and photographers and county clerks … It’s only the beginning.
I applaud her stand. She is an elected official. If her constituents don’t like her stance they can vote her out, or recall her. The Federal government has no jurisdiction over marriage.
This is what happens when you have law by the judiciary instead of the legislatures.
Apparently, not all Kentucky public officials are created equal:
Emphasis in original.
Source: http://adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2015/09/03/welcome-to-chaos-kentucky-public-servants-on-different-sides-of-history
What kind of photographs you were asked to take?
I don’t know. Why did Cliven Bundy and his armed posse make the Bureau of Land Management bark like a seal, despite that agency having mountains of evidence on their side?
Every once in a great while, small town rural America gets away with things that certainly do not foster law and order, and the rest of the nation backs away (while grumbling under their breath).
And Jack Conway could very well pay for that sort of “dereliction of duty” on Nov. 3. He is running for KY governor, you know.
What planet do you live on? That is all that everybody in government does. All the time those in government either enforce or ignore laws so that they reflect their personal beliefs, values, agendas. Is that not what is happening here? Those that do not believe in Christian values and beliefs are using law to enforce their non belief onto a Christian woman in a part of the country that is very Christian.
What planet do you live on where “But everyone else does it” makes it okay? That’s not an excuse I ever accepted from any of my five children, and it’s not an excuse I accept from government officials. By that standard corruption and crony capitalism are things we should also be defending.
I believe in the Rule of Law. I think the Supreme Court over-reached, and I don’t think the govt has any business regulating marriage. But I also believe that it would be hypocritical of me to endorse someone I agree with doing the same thing as people I condemn.
She has the right to practice her beliefs and live her life in a manner consistent with them. She does not have the right to impose them on others as an agent of government, regardless of whether or not I think she is fundamentally right on an issue.
And isn’t she an elected official of County government.
Was the county clerk not also up for reelection?
She was on that job before Anthony Kennedy pulled this new “right” out of his rear.